Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Solar panel waste may not be as bad as we thought

fastcompany.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 290 posts

Re: Solar panel waste may not be as bad as we thought

#61

Post by salty_biscuits »

kwhitefoot wrote: post #56
ilyt wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> - electric cars are still burning fossil fuels cause powerplants burn fossil fuels (yeah, but electric cars go ~2 times further on 1 liter of fuel even if all our power came from fossil fuels which it doesn't) So do hybrids. Burning fuel at power station isn't 2x as efficient as burning it in ICE engine; most of the savings come from not wasting power while braking

> So do hybrids No they don't. All the energy in a hybrid comes from an internal combustion engine which is generally less than 40%. Hybrids help by running the the ICE only when it would be efficient to do so but they can't help in constant speed highway driving.

Partially true. You can get away with a more efficient thermodynamic cycle on the ICE due to the more uniform load on the engine so they can be more efficient.

Re: Solar panel waste may not be as bad as we thought

#62

Post by VBprogrammer »

ajuc wrote: post #14
monero-xmr wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On HN I find it precisely the opposite - if you point out flaws with solar, electric cars, wind, self driving cars, etc. you take a lot of downvotes

One of the reasons is that a lot of these downsides are overplayed, based on long-obsolete data or false altogether. For some examples: - electric cars are still burning fossil fuels cause powerplants burn fossil fuels (yeah, but electric cars go ~2 times further on 1 liter of fuel even if all our power came from fossil fuels which it doesn't) - rare earth minerals are limited which means we can't have everybody driv…

It seems with electric cars there is always another compaint. First came the long tail pipe argument, I think even the most ardent of naysayers have realised that that one is bullshit.

Then the batteries were going to be scattered about the countryside. Except most of them are still in cars, the demand for batteries from crashed damaged cars is high and the life even in early models appears to exceed expectations.

The reality is that Tesla has replaced the Ferrari as the car to aspire to. Nissan have even started producing their e-power cars who's main advantage is that they drive like an electric car (using a petrol engine as generator). Electric cars are going to be a thing, the only limit it battery tech and to my mind that only changes the eventual market share, if some of the battery tech pans out it could be close to 100%. I'm expecting more 60% or so, battery tech will be good enough for most people.

Re: Solar panel waste may not be as bad as we thought

#63

Post by acdha »

monero-xmr wrote: post #7
api wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One should expect monstrous amounts of FUD about anything that replaces fossil fuels.

On HN I find it precisely the opposite - if you point out flaws with solar, electric cars, wind, self driving cars, etc. you take a lot of downvotes

Extending from ajuc's spot-on answer, a lot of those downvotes also come from how this works:

1. Fossil fuel companies are desperate to prolong profitability and avoid legal penalties. They fund unqualified people (e.g. Stephen Milloy) to come up with ways to claim the science isn't settled or to attack the motives of environmentalists. “These people aren't as green as they should be” is a popular approach since humans love to roast hypocrites.

2. Those people are basically constantly A/B testing random brain-farts to see which ones get some traction.

3. The ideas which work well early on start moving from the promoter's personal Twitter/Facebook/blog to Reason.com or Watts Up With That and, if successful, move up to Fox News or The Wall Street Journal.

By numbers, most people hear about this in the latter stages of step 3. That means that when someone gets all fired up about the hot scientific news they got from Tucker and starts repeating it, anyone who cares about the subject has not only heard about it before but has seen it debunked repeatedly, too. That tends to get instant downvotes, just as people do not read spam.

You can see a contrast here: when someone posts something original and shows that they've done some homework, they get plenty of engagement.

Re: Solar panel waste may not be as bad as we thought

#64

Post by epistasis »

monero-xmr wrote: post #7
api wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One should expect monstrous amounts of FUD about anything that replaces fossil fuels.

On HN I find it precisely the opposite - if you point out flaws with solar, electric cars, wind, self driving cars, etc. you take a lot of downvotes

It's really hard to find downsides to these that are not just pure FUD. They really are better than the alternatives in all ways.

We will look back at the days of gas powered engines like we do at steam powered locomotives.

Re: Solar panel waste may not be as bad as we thought

#65

Post by lob_it »

googlryas wrote: post #12
api wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One should expect monstrous amounts of FUD about anything that replaces fossil fuels.

Honestly, at this point in our hyperpartisan world, I expect monsterous FUD about pretty much anything. There was just a small scale war in my city about a proposal to slightly modify the way our library is funded. If that gets people riled up, then one can only imagine what multi trillion dollar industries can stir up.

Its more of a generational divide with the hyperpartisan gibberish. I always laughed when they said "voting for the lessor of two brain-dead illiterates stuck in the 18th century".

It looks like the indoctrinated offspring from that rabid environment just make a 3rd and 4th party easier to implement... To square up the 3 sides to every story and the fourth to make it interesting (FORE is a cool number in golf too).

A ho-nest days pay for a ho-nest days work is loaded with innuendos :)

And regarding renewables, diversification is a beautiful thing in the 1st world :)

Re: Solar panel waste may not be as bad as we thought

#66

Post by chadcmulligan »

lazide wrote: post #59
thechao wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's probably just a yellow bike shed, though?

Near as I can tell, a lot of people are just mad. Not about anything in particular, just mad. So really it doesn’t matter, they’ll pick a fight over anything.

As an older fairly conservative friend of mine said when I was trying to talk him into some new tech thing - I just don't want anything to change. Seems a lot of people are like that, and just knee jerk to any change.

Re: Solar panel waste may not be as bad as we thought

#67

Post by nicoburns »

VBprogrammer wrote: post #62
ajuc wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One of the reasons is that a lot of these downsides are overplayed, based on long-obsolete data or false altogether. For some examples: - electric cars are still burning fossil fuels cause powerplants burn fossil fuels (yeah, but electric cars go ~2 times further on 1 liter of fuel even if all our power came from fossil fuels which it doesn't) - rare earth minerals are limited which means we can't have everybody driv…

It seems with electric cars there is always another compaint. First came the long tail pipe argument, I think even the most ardent of naysayers have realised that that one is bullshit. Then the batteries were going to be scattered about the countryside. Except most of them are still in cars, the demand for batteries from crashed damaged cars is high and the life even in early models appears to exceed expectations. Th…

Here in the UK (and I believe most of Europe), they’re planning to ban sales of new ICE cars in I believe 2030. As such, 100% uptake (or close enough, perhaps there will some exceptions for specialised use cases) is almost guaranteed.

Re: Solar panel waste may not be as bad as we thought

#68

Post by macspoofing »

api wrote: post #4
PaulHoule wrote: post #3

It’s a story similar to nuclear power, where people found it wasn’t that hard to extend the life of nuclear reactors a lot longer than originally planned.

One should expect monstrous amounts of FUD about anything that replaces fossil fuels.

Solar does not replace fossil fuels.

Re: Solar panel waste may not be as bad as we thought

#69

Post by colordrops »

nostromo wrote: post #33

Aren’t they mostly silicon and recyclable metals? If so, who cares about the waste? It depends on what’s in the waste that matters, not its raw volume. The materials used in solar panels are both highly recyclable and environmentally benign, a great combination.

They also last at least 25 years. There's no way that the waste from the panels is worse than 25 years of CO2 emissions.

Re: Solar panel waste may not be as bad as we thought

#70

Post by lazide »

ilyt wrote: post #28
ajuc wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One of the reasons is that a lot of these downsides are overplayed, based on long-obsolete data or false altogether. For some examples: - electric cars are still burning fossil fuels cause powerplants burn fossil fuels (yeah, but electric cars go ~2 times further on 1 liter of fuel even if all our power came from fossil fuels which it doesn't) - rare earth minerals are limited which means we can't have everybody driv…

> - electric cars are still burning fossil fuels cause powerplants burn fossil fuels (yeah, but electric cars go ~2 times further on 1 liter of fuel even if all our power came from fossil fuels which it doesn't) So do hybrids. Burning fuel at power station isn't 2x as efficient as burning it in ICE engine; most of the savings come from not wasting power while braking

One correction - a typical coal burning power plant is approximately 33% efficient at converting fuel to energy [https://www.energy.gov/fecm/transformative-power-systems], and combined cycled natural gas power plants are 45-57% efficient. [https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/engineering/natural-gas...]

Direct ICE vehicles are between 11-27% efficient. [https://sciendo.com/pdf/10.2478/rtuect-2020-0041]

So even a inefficient coal plant is about 50% more efficient than a very efficient normal ICE car, and combined cycle natural gas IS 2x more efficient than a very efficient normal ICE car - and about 5x more efficient than a non-efficient ICE car.

Lots of cross comparisons can be made, but on overage, even with transmission losses, charging losses, etc. it would be very unusual for an EV + power plant combo to be less efficient end to end than directly fueling a traditional ICE vehicle. If it was, it would likely just be a few percent.

CapEx is a real concern here of course, and logistics.

But opex and energy efficiency are solidly in the EV camp.

Post reply on HN